- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,377
- Reactions
- 17,769
There are proper measurements that have huge potential use in research but in general you won't find any of those collected in an urban environment since that development itself skews the data.
There are proper measurements that have huge potential use in research but in general you won't find any of those collected in an urban environment since that development itself skews the data.That way we might be able to arrive at a clearer picture of what (if anything) may be truly happening, and thereby more confidently determine where the accusations of rubbish truly belong!!
We were suppose to be underwater by now. All the alarmist crap is - just crap. It doesn't help the discussion. And the propaganda put out by idiots on the left stopped debate. Remember the "you're a nazi if you don't believe in climate change".MoKJO all CC discussion is alarming . In fact if you follow it clearly it is down right terrifying. Unfortunately that doesn't make it wrong.
It's clear that CC is happening and the rate of change is, in fact, faster than was suggested even 10 years ago. The research to date looks at the consequences of allowing CO2 emissions to continue on their current path vs moving heaven and earth to reduce them. The difference in outcome is moving from just disastrous to making the planet largely unihabitable for us.
Yes we do need to redirect our energies to food and water security. Mind you how the driest continent on earth can create water security in a rapidly warming climate is the $1 Trillion question. Good luck with that.
Any chance those of you in the rest of the country could send some if your heat down to Tas?
Largely due to wind chill but it’s rather cold outside right now. Think I’ll turn the heater on.....
I'll send you some rain, from SEQ, but you can keep the heat. If you like humidity, I'll send some of that too.I'll send you some heat if you send some rain to NSW Central West.
I'll send you some rain, from SEQ, but you can keep the heat. If you like humidity, I'll send some of that too.
I'll take some of Smurfs cold though.
Yes he would and my reply,, Europe had and extremely cold winter and the Arctic Circle was up to 30c above normal. At times zero deg c when its supposed to be up to 50 below. This is the displacement effect of the abnormal patterns. Al Gore and most scientists did not anticipate this.SEQ predicted to have a really cold winter ...... I would suggest Noco would be asking the question
Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!Yes he would and my reply,, Europe had and extremely cold winter and the Arctic Circle was up to 30c above normal. At times zero deg c when its supposed to be up to 50 below. This is the displacement effect of the abnormal patterns. Al Gore and most scientists did not anticipate this.
Of course cold weather fits with the denier agenda but its not helping the problem go away, just kicking the can down the road. Ok for an old fella but not for our future generations.
Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!
All this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given their overt unwillingness to separate fashionable opinions from "pseudo scientific" research practices.
The funny thing about agreement, is that it happens to be a form of denial of disagreement.
Whenever someone decries those in disagreement as deniers, the decrier is assuming a position of denial of those so decried!
So you too, are at least as guilty of denial, as those you so quickly accuse of same!
With the possible exception of alarmism, I am not seeking to ignore anything.So its ok to ignore sudden rises in temperature of 40deg c in the arctic whilst at the same time record cold snow storms across Europe and just pretend alls ok.
What I would dearly like to witness.. a gravitation towards scientific practice....
Of course they didn't anticipate any if it! For the simply reason that they don't have the first clue about what might be happening, nor do they have any notion of how one may be able to find out!
That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.
If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.
Laboratory experiments, whilst obviously imperfect, do show the expected results. Proper scientists have done plenty of that and for what it's worth I had a go too just to see what happened. Add more CO2 and my simulated planet got warmer. Those who did it with more scientific rigour get the same results.
We are 100% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has been measured for decades at places distant from local pollution sources and then there's things like ice cores. We know it's increasing.
What nobody could honestly say they know is what effects this will bring. Anything there is theory and observation only, nobody can say for certain what the climate will be like in Melbourne, Vienna or Tokyo 50 years from now. Logic says that if the earth's overall temperature increases then that will have impacts but nobody's sure of the details. Predicting the exact closing value of the ASX200 on the 17th of July 2061 and who will be president of the USA a decade from now would be somewhat easier than predicting the fine details of climate change.
Does increasing CO2 cause warming = almost certainly yes. Works in theory. Works in a lab. Seems to be working in practice on earth. Even without the science, pure commonsense says that changing the composition of the atmosphere would likely result in something happening.
What nobody knows for sure is what effects it's going to have. Anyone claiming otherwise is most certainly making assumptions.
That said, it's a fair point that there's at least some chance the effects will be seriously bad and, since there's no going back, it would be wise not to find out.
That carbon dioxide, methane, oxides of nitrogen and various man-made chemicals trap heat in the atmosphere is a very well understood theory.
If the atmosphere didn't retain heat then every night would be a lot colder than it is now. Also a well understood concept.
Laboratory experiments, whilst obviously imperfect, do show the expected results. Proper scientists have done plenty of that and for what it's worth I had a go too just to see what happened. Add more CO2 and my simulated planet got warmer. Those who did it with more scientific rigour get the same results.
We are 100% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. It has been measured for decades at places distant from local pollution sources and then there's things like ice cores. We know it's increasing.
What nobody could honestly say they know is what effects this will bring. Anything there is theory and observation only, nobody can say for certain what the climate will be like in Melbourne, Vienna or Tokyo 50 years from now. Logic says that if the earth's overall temperature increases then that will have impacts but nobody's sure of the details. Predicting the exact closing value of the ASX200 on the 17th of July 2061 and who will be president of the USA a decade from now would be somewhat easier than predicting the fine details of climate change.
Does increasing CO2 cause warming = almost certainly yes. Works in theory. Works in a lab. Seems to be working in practice on earth. Even without the science, pure commonsense says that changing the composition of the atmosphere would likely result in something happening.
What nobody knows for sure is what effects it's going to have. Anyone claiming otherwise is most certainly making assumptions.
That said, it's a fair point that there's at least some chance the effects will be seriously bad and, since there's no going back, it would be wise not to find out.
On the contrary, the CO2 exhalations of the populace require the atmosphere as a conduit! A doubling of the populace, doubles the respiratory contribution present in our atmosphere at any given time!So far as respiration is concerned that’s just part of the carbon cycle and under normal circumstances adds zero CO2 to the atmosphere since what you’re breathing out was removed from the atmosphere not long prior when the crops were grown.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?